1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The judgment of the court of first instance is justified to the effect that the Plaintiffs’ assertion in the court of first instance is not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance while appealed, and even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance is re-examined, the Plaintiffs are not eligible for disaster consolation benefits.

Accordingly, this court's judgment on the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance

4.(a)

In addition to the application of the part of the first instance judgment (from 13th to 4th end of the said judgment), the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment. As such, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Judgment of the court below] 4. Judgment

A. As seen earlier, persons who suffered occupational accidents after the date of the closure of a mine are also eligible for disaster compensation benefits, the latter part of Article 41(3)5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Coal Industry Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 14092, Dec. 31, 1993) (hereinafter “the provision of this case”) which applied at the time of the closure of each mining center where the Plaintiffs worked as victims of disaster compensation benefits. The latter part of Article 41(3)5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Coal Industry Act (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 14092, Dec. 31, 1993) stipulates that “the person whose disability grade is not determined as of the date of the closure of a mine site shall also be eligible for disaster compensation benefits, and the Plaintiffs received diagnosis of pneumoconiosis

Therefore, as in the case of the plaintiffs, it is the key issue of this case whether a person who was diagnosed with pneumoconiosis after the closure date should be deemed as a person eligible for disaster compensation benefits in the interpretation of the above Enforcement Decree.

However, considering the following all the circumstances, the latter part of the provision of this case shall be construed to include the case where the occupational accident occurred after the closure date.